selvaraja somiah’s twisted thoughts

Me, just an ordinary Penangite who spent a good part of my learning life in North Borneo and Kathmandu. I’m a geologist turned freelance writer who’s joining the blog sphere now. What I post are my general views, my ramblings, and opinions of my thoughts of what is happening in my country. You are welcome to write your comments, but seditious and racial remarks will be deleted. I am no big writer but will try my best to provide my thoughts with my simple English. I welcome suggestions and opinions on my blog so that it can be improved further for the benefit of all.

Malaysian journalists, particularly in Sabah, were urged last night not to give room for news stories based on mere allegations or made up of lopsided information or half-truths.

Sabah Chief Ministeri Musa Aman said journalists reports should be based on solid facts and not speculation which would paint the wrong picture and cause unnecessary concern or even panic.

“At a time when information, albeit true or false, is available at the press of a finger, the media now has more responsibility to ensure their reports are accurate,” he said at the Kinabalu Shell Press Awards here on Friday night.

Musa said journalists have a constructive role to play in society by not only reporting news and providing information to the public, but also to act as an important intermediary between the government and the people.

He said the media influenced people’s way of thinking, besides having the power to change the social and political landscape of a nation.

“This tool should be used wisely and for the betterment of society. Using it in a different direction and in an irresponsible manner could spell disaster,” he added.

The chief minister also presented the six main awards to the winners of the Press Awards.

This is the Statutory Declaration of Raja Petra which is spinning big time by our mainstream papers. So now you know how we have been taken for wild rides by our mainstream media over the years.

Raja Petra’s purpose for doing the Statutory Declaration was to get the cops to gather information from those people mentioned in the SD in regards to the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

Sad but true, there was no investigation by the police and none of those people mentioned in the SD were questioned.

Where is the truth, if the cops didn’t do a proper investigation over this Statutory Declaration?

See above, Raja Petra’s doctored interview with TV3 which is the hottest news in Malaysia overtaking the Sarawak state elections, which is centered on his SD, in which he claimed he was reliably informed by his informer that Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor was at the scene of the crime, witnessing the blasting of Altantuya’s body. In this interview, Raja Petra claims that he not yet believe the story as it sounds incredible and he wants the authorities to investigate.

Raja Petra is a MASTER STRATEGIST, he has resurrected the Altantuya story all over again. What a move!

And hear from the man himself what he has to say about the whole thing, about allowing himself to be taken for spin by TV3 and the Malaysian mainstream papers:

Raja Petra Kamarudin April 14 at 10:04pm

Q1: Why make the revelation now, why didn’t you correct the media reports soon after your SD came out two years ago?

Actually the SD was signed 3 years ago, not 2 years ago. And it was published the very next day and I was arrested and charged almost immediately.

I have been writing article upon article over the last 3 years saying that I did not make any allegation about Rosmah Mansor and the two Lt Kols husband and wife. What I said was that an informer had informed me about the matter. By the way, have you read my SD yet? I would suspect not, as many who comment do so without reading it. That is why you said 2 years instead of 3. Or else you would have known it was signed in June 2008.

Anyway, is it my job to correct what the mainstream media intentionally distorts? And did anyone from the mainstream media talk to me? Most of the mainstream media actually covered my trials but still they misreported the whole thing.

Are you saying I am to blame for the misdeeds and malicious acts of others? Their job is to whack me and that is what they did. Now, after 3 years of getting whacked, I am whacking back. Is this not my right?

Anyway, the interview was done 2 months ago, not now. People ask me why now, just before the Sarawak elections?

2 months ago there was no confirmation of the Sarawak elections. So when do I do it? After the Sarawak elections? Then, after the Sarawak elections, people will say why now, just before the 13th GE? So I wait until after the 13th GE and people will still ask, why now, just before a by-election?

So when should I do it? After Malaysia bans elections?

Q2: Can you comment on Din Merican’s denial that he was involved in the attempt to discredit Rosmah and Najib?

Did I say he was involved? I just asked him to check with Anwar Ibrahim the background of Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin and that was what he did. And he admitted this in his Blog posting. So what is the issue? Why accuse me of something I did not do?

Q3: Aside from your Statutory Declaration, do you have any proof of the involvement of the people you mentioned in the attempt to discredit Najib and Rosmah?

What do you mean by proof? Video recordings of them in towels in a hotel room? Define ‘proof’. Anwar was convicted and sentenced to 15 years jail in 1999 based on testimony. Testimony is proof and that was good enough to sentence Anwar to 15 years jail. My testimony is even better. It is in the form of an SD.

Q4: Now talks on the ground is that your sudden revelation is because you want to return to Malaysia. Your comment?

Talks on the ground is that Najib was caught kalwat in a Port Dickson hotel room. Do you want to ask Najib this? Who cares about talks on the ground? If the government says I am welcome back in Malaysia and I tell the government to go to hell because I love it in the country of my birth what then are you going to say?

And what ‘sudden revelation’? Have you not heard what I said? I have been repeating this again and again over the last 3 years. What’s so sudden about saying the same thing over 3 years? You mean I kept silent the last 3 years and only today I am talking?

Q5: You have also been accused of shifting attention from the Sarawak election with your latest allegation. Your thoughts.

Shifting attention? You really must improve your communication skills because I don’t understand what you mean. I have also been accused of going to church every Sunday and that my wife and I have left Islam to become Catholics.

Do you really think I care what they say? My interview was done before the announcement of the Sarawak elections. Maybe they held the Sarawak elections to shift attention from my interview since my interview came first.

Q6: Where does your loyalty lie now that you have turned the tables against Anwar and the opposition front?

You must be smoking something. Let me know what it is so that I can get some. My loyalty from Day One was always with the rakyat: dulu, kini dan selama-lamanya. Now, which part of the word rakyat don’t you understand?

Malaysia is looking at Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman. Will he take the reins that history has graciously given him to change the future of one of the most poorest state in Malaysia? Some analyst have conducted polls on the popularity of states run by Barisan National state governments and Musa Aman is one of the best. If he wants a place in the history of Malaysis’s fractured politics, he can bid for it. But it is not going to be easy.

One cannot help feeling tickled with the poll predictions that the media toyed with before the results of the Batu Sapi Parliamentary elections came pouring in. Most of them were far off the mark. Sometimes, the media would do well to look into the mirror and accept how poorly prepared it is. Even in Sabah where the majority is illiterate, unemployed and poor, voters can vote for change and hold out a candle of hope for democracy. The golden rule in old-fashioned journalism of yesteryear’s was that if a journalist had his ear to the ground, he would hear the tremors. But in the age of Google and Facebook, the way most journalists get information has changed.

More than anything else, the Batu Sapi Parliamentary election screams at journalists asking them to see beyond stereotyped valuations of sociology, race prejudices and ideology. Politics can often teach us simple truths about how truth is what someone somewhere wants to hide and the rest is all advertising. But journalists went around quoting Anwar Ibrahim and Taiko Yong Teck Lee and pretended it to be analysis. After all, both had mastered the art of offering unsolicited election arithmetic in the last twenty years.

Taiko Yong Teck Lee, the rich kid from Lahad Datu who kept talking of how he was just a lawyer, learnt new lessons when the results came pouring in. He could not use “Sabah for Sabahan” battle cry anymore to win elections as the poor wanted change. They wanted development, roads, schools, employment, law and order. Taiko Yong Teck Lee gave them none of these when he was Chief Minister. The investment that he started with his buddy Datuk Ambrose Lee for Sabahans – ‘Saham Amanah Sabah’ or SAS – got him into international headlines as he advertised himself as so caring for the needs of Sabahans, has been in shambles. Once the ink dried on the headlines, he was not bothered, the shares became worthless papers. When he was out as Chief Minister because of the rotation, he was out because of the Likas Election Petition, foisted his friend, Tham Nyip Shen, within minutes. There are many miracles in Sabah politics, but this had no parallel.

There is no politician in Sabah who used the media like Taiko Yong Teck Lee did. With his typical buffoonery, he attracted both the print and electronic media who ate out of his hands. His shirt, his “stylized” hair cut, his sideburns, his deliberate regional accent, all were lapped up. His rustic jokes and pranks were blown up by the media showing him up to be a lovable people’s leader. The media almost showed him as a social engineer whose only passion was social justice for Sabahans.

But, fifteen years down the road, the state of Sabah was appalling, until Musa aman came into the picture when he was Sworn-In As Sabah’s 13th Chief Minister 27 Mar 2003. It is the poor who have no say while the rich and the politically connected, run a diktat. So do illegals who have gotten Malaysian identity cards compliments to Mahathir, criminals, timber thieves, gangsters and political touts. Sabah’s per capita GDP in 2009 was just RM. 14830 when it is RM. 29569 for Penang. Musa needs to do all he can to get the Federal Government to give him more funds. He will have to reform public administration and insulate the bureaucracy political interference. Only then will he be able to insulate himself from daily governance and concentrate on the larger picture of salvaging his state from the depths it had fallen since joining Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak in 1963.

It is certainly not going to be a cakewalk for Musa Aman. Today, he heads one of the most poorest states of Malaysia that is caught in a whirlpool of political depravity. The state had crumbled before he took over, even Yayasan Sabah could not pay wages to its staff, quasi government bodies like KPD and SLDB were milked dry by top officers. Kidnappings for ransom continued in the east-cost around the seas in Semporna by Abu Sayafs. But after Musa Aman took over the state everything changed, its better now a world of difference. Even the annual real per capita income of Sabah of RM 14000 is about halve of the national average of RM 22000 and its improving.

It is not that Kuala Lumpur ignored the reality of Sabah. There were reports, but not enough. Unless KL politicians travel and live in the interior with the natives, there will only be superficial reports that are basically hearsay of planted stories by vested interests.

Musa Aman’s assurance that he will change the focus in Sabah from politics to economics and development, is heart warming to say the least. He has raised millions of hopes not only in Kota Kinabalu but every corner of Sabah since 2003. He will now have to work against all odds to get to change the way we all see and feel about Sabah.

What the voters in Sabah were looking for is governance. Voters told themselves that it was pointless to waste their votes on anyone or any party that would not give them anything in return. So they voted for change. It is now pointless for political pundits to sit in air-conditioned office and proclaim that the phantom voters and illegals was responsible. Or some ridiculous analysis. We must accept this truth.

And that is the greatest hope for Sabah. The Batu Sapi Parliamentary elections showed us what the poorest of the poor could do when in an election booth. They wanted Musa assurance not so much the PBS which was contesting the seat.The electorate was actually desperate and wanted someone who would rescue them from a present, which seemed to be heading towards a bleak future. They no more wanted to be a part of a failed state. I remember how on one of my visits to shoot news stories in Sekong, I had my cab driver telling me to pack up early as he would not drive at night as the night belonged to the illegals. The bridge I was walking was falling apart.The clinic had no medicines and patients were lucky if they had doctors attending to them. But hundreds of poor people were being transported for a rally in Sandakan. The visual of a poor emaciated woman trying to pick up plastic bottles strewn in a ground after the “ceramah” haunts me as if I saw it yesterday.

I had interviewed Late Pitting Ali just outside his sprawling house and he asked me counter questions to every question asked. There was arrogance in his voice as he mocked every question that came from the feeling that an illiterate and poor populace would never have the courage to stand up and show him the door. Typical USNO mentality.

Musa now has to put the fear of law into those who thought it was land that was created for illegals. He will have to inspire the bureaucracy that has been numbed by years by the Federal. They have to be allowed to get back their self-esteem and pride in building a state and infusing it with their commitment and vision. He will have to seduce industrialists into investing and that is not going to be easy either but so far he has done a fantastic job. There is just too much of cynicism. He will have to sweep in literacy although its in the hands of the federal, as that is one great hope for Sabah. It is just that it will take a decade for the results to show and its showing. Development indices have to start climbing the graph which is climbing from the time he took over, glad to say that.

Musa has to learn how to humor the coalition. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is silently waiting in the wings. It is desperate for more power in the state as it wants to pull Musa down. It knows that its base in the state is slowly eroding and openly criticizing the Chief Minister, stating they did not have confidence in and cannot work with the State leadership. Its president Datuk Liew Vui Keong openly criticized Chief Minister Musa Aman when Liew said that Musa is obliged to look after the interest of Barisan Nasional component parties in exercising his prerogative power, as though Musa does not know this. Liew knows that Musa, as the BN chairman and Chief Minister had the prerogative to chose who he wanted to appoint into his cabinet but Liew ignores this fact because of his dissatisfaction following the appointment of my good friend PBS deputy president Datuk Dr Yee Moh Chai as the deputy chief minister on March 23. Sure this appointment paved the way for PBS to have two deputy chief ministers in the cabinet, but what else can Musa do, these two were the best, Pairin and Dr Yee. Desperate for tasting power, LDP will want its own agenda addressed and it might not go well with Musa’s plans to run the state. If Musa is not careful, sooner or later, the LDP in its typical style will try to dominate the bureaucracy and other potent centers of power and undermine his leadership in the state.

Musa can look towards Penang chief minister, Lim Guan Eng, who is rapidly changing the face of Penang bringing in investment, creating employment, infrastructure and also working on improving the poor development indices. Guan Eng never even seemed like a politician when he took reins over the state and critics said that he was lucky that his father, Lim Kit Siang, was there for him. But the son has done far better than the father ever did though he was such a seasoned leader and politician.

Musa knows that he carries a heavy weight on his shoulders. He has to tame a bureaucracy that has forgotten how to work. He has to bring in fiscal discipline. He has to take unpopular decisions. He has to be tough in implementing law and order. He has been in power for many years now, and the honeymoon period with the electorate is over. Now, it is time to act with courage and determination.

And with courage and determination he manage to talk to Premier Najib to scrap the plans to build a coal-fired power plant near a Borneo wildlife reserve, a move environmentalists praised as a landmark effort to curtail projects that threaten rain forests sheltering endangered animals. Musa Aman, announced that the federal government had decided not to construct the 300-megawatt coal plant, which many feared would be a major source of pollution.

If not for Musa, the RM 1.7 billion ringgit plant would have been built on the site of an oil palm plantation, about 12 miles from the Tabin Wildlife Reserve, home to Borneo pygmy elephants, rhinoceros and orangutans.

Musa knows very well that Sabah needs to increase its power supply to meet the increasing development, but he also knows that the state cannot afford to put its natural environment at risk. Now he has to seek other ways to fulfill Sabah’s energy demand, which is expected to increase by up to 8 percent annually.

There could be a new dawn in Sabah. Musa has got a chance in a lifetime. If he loses this, history will never forgive him.

Look, even the Indons are laughing at us. We have become so “teruk” now. Thanks to UMNO and the sex videos. See below the latest editorial from The Jakarata Post

A new low for Malaysian politics

The Jakarta Post | Mon, 03/28/2011 9:13 PM | Editorial

Malaysia’s dirty politics reached a nadir last week when the local media reported on a new video featuring a man who looked like former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim having sex with a prostitute in a hotel room.

Coming at a time when Anwar is battling sodomy charges in court, it makes you wonder just really how low can it go.

The video was shown to a few journalists from the mainstream media who were selected and screened in a fashion worthy of a cloak-and-dagger novel.

The government-controlled media, which have played a key role in previous campaigns to discredit Anwar, violated every known ethical practice of journalism by providing graphic reports of the alleged “sex sojourn” without verifying the identities of the video’s subjects.

Typically, the source of the video was not disclosed, evoking the popular Indonesian (and Malay) saying lempar batu sembunyi tangan, which means “throw the rock, hide your hand”. No one took responsibility for screening the video, but the mainstream media played along and reported what their journalists saw.

Ever willing accomplices, the media broke one of the credos of journalism: Identify your sources, especially when making allegations as serious as this.

The Malaysian media did not bother to identify the man in the video. The mere suggestion that man looked like Anwar Ibrahim was enough to cast doubt on Anwar’s credibility and integrity in the supposedly puritan yet hypocritical society. Truth and verification go out window when you are part of a propaganda machine.

The media placed the onus on Anwar to disprove the claim, something which would likely keep him busy for the next several months or even years, certainly until the next general election.

We have seen this before when Anwar was first sentenced to prison for sodomy, only to have the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction in 2004.

Subsequently, new sodomy charges appeared and Anwar has been busy going to and from the courtroom.

Sex, media and video conspiracies define Malaysian politics today. It gets dirtier all the time

First is the WikiLeaks story of what Singaporean top diplomats, the former permanent secretary at Singapore’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, Peter Ho, and the present permanent secretary Bilahari Kausikan, commented during Singaporean diplomats’ meeting with senior US Deputy Secretary of Defence for East Asia David Sedney, that Premier Najib had links to the murder of the Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaariibuu@ Aminah in 2006.

In the same meeting Peter Ho also said Premier Najib Razak as “an opportunist” and there is a lack of competent leadership in Malaysia. And Bilahari adds to say that, the situation in Malaysia is confused and dangerous and there is a possibility of racial conflict that could see Chinese “flee” Malaysia and “overwhelm” Singapore.

Second interesting WikiLeaks story is about how Singapore former Premier Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore Special Branch had intercepted communications and have found out that Anwar Ibrahim had actually sodomised Saiful in a honey trap set by some of Anwar’s enemies. In this story, Lee Kuan Yew told ONA (Office of National Assessments) that Anwar did indeed commit the sodomy and he Lee Kuan Yew had reached his conclusion based on “technical intelligence,” which he got via intercepted communications.

WikiLeaks the whistle-blower exclusively leaked these stories to Australia’s Fairfax Media Group and the Australian newspapers had a field day carrying the contents of the cables the last few days.

Singapore says it is shocked by the contents. But is it true they are shocked? If that’s true, they must be the only ones shocked. Most of what’s in these cables has already been thoroughly discussed by the general public in Malaysia.

There is no doubt that WikiLeaks serves a genuine need and a valuable purpose. WikiLeaks claim that they are bringing important news and information to the public and publishing “material of ethical, political and historical significance” and “providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and uncensored injustices,” is really true in the Malaysian contexts. If we were privy to the day-to-day uncensored thoughts of any organization, or even any family, the results would make a great soap opera – but like most soaps its for washing dirt.

I agree that private conversations and back-room dealings can be interesting. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Saiful was bonking the DPP lady, or the AG bonking his director of international affairs lady, Najib and Saiful were having a heart-felt talk about Anwar and his prick – when Mahathir and his comrades were strategizing over Pak Lah and Khairy – when Najib and his Rosmah were discussing Altantuya and Submarine. Most things are done behind closed doors until it gets leaked by a FLY.

While Singapore may have said some embarrassing (but not necessarily untrue) things about Malaysia, I’m sure Malaysia have said equally impolite, if not worse, things about Singapore within the confines of our own borders and embassies. I would not be surprised if a Malaysian diplomat had made an unkind comment about Lee Kuan Yew, if a Malaysian diplomat had made an impatient remark about the little red dot, Singapore, cheating us in the water deal, etc, etc,.

While the majority of these leaks may have been diplomatic chit-chat, WikiLeaks promises to expose more information and of a more secretive nature. In the midst of the uproar, WikiLeaks’s purpose – beyond causing havoc and possibly supplying valuable information to unfriendly parties, all in the name of fighting injustice – is always clear. Besides all classified or private information is an injustice in the making.

I wonder if we could re-direct Wikileaks’s energies. For example, what may be really helpful to Malaysia as a whole is if WikiLeaks could hack into and make public the communications of Premier Najib and UMNO, planning violence if Barisan Nation loses power in the 13 General Election. Maybe WikiLeaks could also reveal the ambitions of some of the less transparent and more unstable Ibrahim Ali’s Perkasa, which would indeed be a revelation. And here in Malaysia, wouldn’t it be nice to know who are the most corrupt politicians and the value of their Swiss bank account holdings or which Minister raped his Indonesian maid?

Even if we haven’t learnt a lot from the latest set of WikiLeaks releases, one lesson is becoming increasing clear. Be careful what you email your buddy about your affair with your secretary, what you email your wife about how great last night’s play was, what you email your friend about your sexual fantasy. Someone may be hacking you.

Thanks to the effort of WikiLeaks. Those who favour openness, accountability, liberty and equality in state actions call this as the first bold step towards establishing true democratisation of information. Those who got exposed, embarrassed and were dragged into the spotlight have termed it ‘irresponsible’ and ‘criminal’. It requires no explanation to understand who stays at what side of the fence.

Question is what is in fact criminal; engaging in espionage and violating international laws, criminal conspiracy, Cabinet Minister raping Indonesian maids and then covering it up, using C4 to dispose evidence, putting fear of violence or exposing such criminal acts?

Maybe you guys should read here and here to guess which Minister raped his Indonesian maid, compliments from Julian Assange.

“The truth is the greatest enemy of the state” wrote the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels. In the same article he went on to say that “If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. Oh how proud he would be of Musa Aman for, alas, he has put this Goebbels doctrine to the test with an overwhelming record of success.

In a statement today, former chief minister Datuk Harris Salleh said Sabah should have earned at least US$5 billion (RM16 billion) from the production of oil from Blocks L and M ceded to Brunei, based on its agreement with Petronas.

Harris also said, however, the state may no longer have the right to demand the amount since both blocks have been ceded to Brunei.

He also said ” to my knowledge, Murphy Sabah Co Ltd was awarded the two blocks in 2003 worth more than US$100 billion in oil revenue and Sabah is entitled to 5%.”

Musa Aman did not tell the truth. But what was Musa Aman thinking? That we, the public, are dodos. Musa even had the cheek to allow Datuk Johnny Mositun of PBS to educate the people on maritime law and justify as to why the 2 blocks belongs to Brunei.

People tend to think it is impolite to say someone is telling a lie. I will therefore not use that word because I do not want to appear to be impolite, rude and insulting to our Chief Minister Musa Aman.

You see lies can be classified in many categories and can be given different names like prevarication or falsehood. They can be contextual lies, emergency lies, barefaced lies, fabrications or jocose lies. Our politicians lie through their teeth, some lie by omission, some by obsolete signage, some lie by careful speaking. At the end of it all, it’s all lies. In fact, I might be lying to suggest Rosmawati’s nose looks like that of Musa Aman. I might even be lying to say Datuk Abu Kassim the MACC boss was having dinner with Musa Aman in his house in KK last week, but this is not a lie and I shall promise on my father’s grave.

The truth is an absolute standard that is not open to negotiation and compromise. It has its organic whole whose integrity cannot be violated. It is the media who should take their responsibilities seriously and point out the gaps aka the lies.

This is serious – a Chief Minister who “lies”, shouldn’t this be headline news in all media? The media is an important component of our Democratic checks and balances. It is sad the media did not do the job it was assigned to do. Come on, ‘The Star’, ‘Daily Express’ you can do better than that.

So next time guys, if we hear some puffed-up little jerk of a politician on TV yakking away spreading ‘1Malaysia’ or ‘Anwar sodomise Saiful’ or ‘racial harmony, or even ‘I’m not taking a second wife’ or ‘ sports betting only for Chinese’ or ‘I’m not gay’ or ‘ Raja Petra Is working with Zionist’, just take a minute and try to work out what he’s ‘really’ talking about. Because its sure as hell not going to be what he ’seems’ to be talking about.

Let me ask you guys a question. Is it too much to expect our YB’s and our news media to use words honestly, to say what they really mean and mean what they say? Well if it is, then at least we can call them what they really are. They’re liars, plain and simple. And you can tell them Selva said that.

And one more thing, according to my sources, Musa Aman now says he got nothing to do with Michael Chai his nominee. Michael Chai who?

I’m an optimist. I believe that statements like “Altantuya Knew Najib” or “Saiful Sodomise by 65 Year Old Anwar Ibrahim” can be evaluated and decided pretty much true or false. The conclusion can be a little more nuanced, but the important thing is that there’s a definitive conclusion.

And even crazier, I believe that if in Malaysia there was a fair and accurate system for determining which of these things were lies, people would stop repeating the lies. I would certainly try to. No matter how much I wanted to believe “Musa Aman Worth US 3 Billion” or “ Najib is Making His Move On Musa Aman” or ‘Musa Aman The Longest Servicing Chief Minister in Sabah”, if a fair system had decided against it, I would stop.

I believe the truth is more important than particular political goals. I want to know that when I make claims, I’m not speaking out of political distortion but out of honest truth. And at the same-time I too want to be able to evaluate the claims of others.

There must be a system and here in my blog I want such a system to work.

First, some ground rules. Everything is open. Anyone can submit anything, and all the records are put on this public website and readers will evaluate.

I shall start of by saying that there seem to be selective prosecution of Musa Aman’s Timber Cronies By Najib’s MACC.

Hear this, the rumour mill sprang into full operation again last week. Speculation abounded about whether Micheal Chai of Sandakan, the timber tycoon linked to Musa Aman, had been raided by MACC again, and whether he had been taken in for questioning again to Putrajaya after being detained and released earlier last month.

The raid was alleged to have been linked to the MACC’s investigation of alleged money laundering and the smuggling of 16 million cash out from Hong Kong International Airport and also to do with Yayasan Sabah’s Timber Concession areas covering close to 1 million hectares. In fact I have written extensively on this.

Micheal Chai was indeed taken in for questioning soon after.

Claims that even Musa Aman had been contacted by MACC and asked to step down as Chief Minister. It seems potentially damning information from the ICAC Hong Kong had come in, and that information would harm UMNO and premier Najib Tun Razak, had surfaced against him. This was of course strongly denied by Musa Aman’s aides. I was even told by Musa Aman’s timber associates that there was never any interaction between the chief minister and the MACC.

Then according to an SMS circulated this week, MACC had confiscated from timber cronies associated with Musa Aman close to 45-million in cash, passports, IDs and other documents, as well as a laptop containing details about all bank accounts in Hong Kong, timber sales to Japan, shipping documents, including instructions to heads of department in Yayasan Sabah about who may be awarded timber extracting tenders.

Claims that could not be officially confirmed included that a warrant of arrest was issued for Micheal Chai by a Putrajaya magistrate last week; that MACC had arrived at Sandakan to arrest Micheal Chai, but had left without doing so; that Micheal Chai was taken in for questioning that lasted more than 3 days, after last Friday’s raid; and that he was to be rearrested again and brought back to Putrajaya MACC office; and that senior lawyer Richard Barnes Ex Sabah state footballer, released and back in KK.

Every Rumour has its foundation in truth, it is simply there because our main media is inadequate in satisfying the curiosity of the people over information, when people expect things to happen and it has not happened, they have every right to speculate why it is has not happened, when there is no explanation for that, they turn to rumour market for answer. Simple. Malaysians are same everywhere, they love RUMOURS. It’s so because in Malaysia, the impotent Media appear sterile and the potent Internet appear fertile.

Everywhere I go for coffee in Kota Kinabalu, from ‘Salim’ in Lintas to ‘Kuan Ah’ in Foh Sang to Tanjung Aru to Putatan, even in Tuaran, people keep asking “What’s happening to Musa?” or “Why Musa Punya Machai Semua Kena Tangkap?” The recent rearrest of Michael Chai and three others last Friday in Sandakan by MACC is creating even much more uncertainty in the state capital Kota Kinabalu. The rumors are swirling that Musa will be out sooner than later because Najib wants him out.

Then there is this story about this women and Musa Aman, but I never heard them. The first I heard of them was in Sandakan, yesterday. Onn Ariffin is talking this up, but he isn’t the most reliable source…however when Raja Petra in London has info and predicts this will be a scoop I listen.

The woman Rosmawati, a Senior Group Manager for Yayasan Sabah, stated of as a secretary and got promoted to such a senior position all within 5 years after knowing Musa aman. And then, suddenly, Rosmawati is relocated to KK from Sandakan to become Senior Group General Manager. And it makes no sense that she’s doing her supposed “job,” for which she seems unqualified anyway. It’s unclear how she could possibly do this job at all, never mind from Sandakan. And she’s been there for at least 3 years as a small time secretary. Now 33, she vigorously denies the vicious and unsubstantiated gossip.

And some Yayasan Sabah insiders suggested that she was the victim of an 11th-hour attempt to smear Musa Aman from become an UMNO Supreme Council Member during the last UMNO AGM.

But now the rumours have resurfaced, suggesting that they may be coming from elements in the UMNO Sabah.

Having now spoken to someone tracking this Romawati story, I can say for sure:

1) It’s not just a silly little rumor.

2) It will break in some form shortly..

Just remember…this is only a rumor until the media get off their behinds and actually investigate this. I heard another rumor that they plan on doing that the day after hell freezes over. I am not claiming this rumor to be true, only offering certain facts that raise serious questions I believe any unbiased media has the obligation to investigate. If only an unbiased media existed. Remember how the media played catch-up with the blogs, Malaysia Today on the Pak Lah’s affair with Jean his sister-in-law? Remember? It will be fun to see them repeat their mistakes if this pans out.

An oil producing offshore area, Block M and Block L belonging to Sabah near Brunei in the South China Sea is no longer a part of Sabah. It now belongs to Brunei. This Block M and Block L is close to 6000 square kilometers in size, which is like 10 times the size of Singapore. Both the blocks can produce 1 billion barrels of oil or US$100 billion in revenue and it belongs to Sabah.

Our Chief Minister from Sabah, Musa Aman together with Abdullah Ahmad Badawi negotiated with the Sultan of Brunei to get back Limbang for Sarawak, in exchange they agreed to surrender this Block M and Block L belonging to Sabah. Can you believe this? Yes, Musa Aman with Badawi, on march 17th, 2009 in Brunei, had signed away US100 billion dollars of oil to the Sultan of Brunei.

And this was not brought up at all by Musa Aman to the Sabah State Legislative Assembly. More importantly by giving up the Blocks L and M, both Musa Aman and Pak Lah were altering the boundaries to Sabah, and the Constitution under Clause 2 (b) provides that this will require the consent of the state and as well as the Conference of Rulers.

To give away or demarcate boundaries of Borneo States, Badawi must first consult Parliament, then under the Federation Agreement with Sabah, Badawi must ask Musa Aman to convene an emergency sitting of the Sabah State Legislative Assembly and then take a vote in the State Assembly. Musa Aman did not just do that. Musa Aman concealed this whole thing, Brunei, Block M and Block L from Sabahans. This Musa Aman, did not bring this matter to the State Assembly at all and why was he hiding this from Sabahans? Musa Aman owes Sabahans and explanation.

Besides, only if Sabah had cleared this matter in the assembly, then only, can this be brought to the Agong for a royal consent to the demarcation of the new boundaries. The Conference of Rulers MUST also agree and that too has to come BEFORE the signing of the Agreement with Brunei. But they did not.

Then why was Pak Lah and Musa Aman in a hurry to sign the Agreement with the Sultan? Why the rush? Pak Lah says he has got the approval from his Cabinet and so everything is in order. But is this true? Was the process done constitutionally, as per the Federation Agreement?

To me this is like TREASON! Musa Aman should be charged for Treason for concealing, hiding or aiding the crime of TREASON. Musa Aman concealed this action from the Sabah State Assembly, and for any public servant To conceal, hide, or aid the crime of TREASON is to be guilty of the same offence.

The facts are :

1. Malaysia, Sabah no longer has any sovereignty over the 2 areas i.e Block L and Block M.
2. Malaysian oil companies can only participate in jointly developing the areas for 40 years (with Brunei’s permission).
3. Limbang remains a disputed area with Brunei.

I stand by my opinion that Musa Aman and Abdullah Badawi should be tried for Treachery and TREASON for losing territory belonging to Sabah, Malaysia.

Then if the KL boys were to say that the Blocks L & M are not within the Sabah State waters and therefore under the purview of the Federal Government, then I will say, why this not brought to Parliament, and not brought to The Agong, and then to the Conference of Rulers, as we are after all altering the boundaries of the federation? Is it because it comes under the Federal Territory of LABUAN?

Explain lah!

Dato’ Sri Anifah bin Haji Aman, the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs the brother of Chief Minister Datuk Musa Aman, you are the right person, please explain? You and your brother claim fighting for Sabah’s rights, show us lah! Sorry Anifah I have to bring you into this picture although you are just recuperating from a massive attack following surgery to clear blocked arteries in your heart. I hear you are recovering well following coronary bypass surgery in Singapore. I wish you speedy recovery my friend!

The media plays a very significant role in keeping diplomatic ties between countries strong. The media is strongly responsible for covering issues as ethically and as unbiased as possible in order to deliver the news right. In May of 2008, the International Court of Justice had ruled that Singapore would be given sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh (also known in English as Pedra Branca), ending the 28-year old territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over the isle no larger than half a football field. Though the verdict brought about much mixed reactions from both parties, this research will only focus on the Malaysian news coverage given on the issue. The methodology for this research will be a qualitative one, in which the researchers will conduct interviews with relevant parties as well as evaluate random sampling of news materials that focused on the Pulau Batu Puteh incident in 2008. The researchers also aim to investigate how mediated political issues are presented and how it can affect its readers from Malaysia and Singapore alike.

The issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca or Pulau Batu Puteh (literally meaning ‘White Rock’), an island with an area of about 8,560 square metres, between Malaysia and Singapore, crystallized on 14th February 1980. The issue of sovereignty was brought to attention when Singapore protested against the publication in 1979 by Malaysia of a map depicting the island as lying within Malaysia’s territorial waters. 13 years later, on the 6th February 1993 it was followed up by the dispute as to sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge. This dispute was then brought to the International Court of Justice (The ICJ) to be settled. The only form of development found on this island located between the Singapore Straits and South China Sea is the Horsburgh Lighthouse, built by the British somewhere between 1850 and 1851 without seeking consent from any party as Malaya was under ruling of the British.

Both countries made endless efforts to stake their claim over Pulau Batu Puteh. Ralph Haller-Trost (1993) wrote in his book Historical legal claims: a study of disputed sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh (Pedra Branca), that Malaysia had historically tried to prove that the island belonged to them for almost 400 years.

“Malaysia argued that the Sultan of Johore had exercised sovereignty over the rock since 1513 when the Johore-Riau-Lingga Sultanate was founded by Sultan Mahmud…According to the Malaysian view, based on the Theory of State Succession, Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to the Federation of Malaysia because it was part of the Federation of Malaya into which in turn the sultanate of Johore was amalgamated when it joined the newly formed independent state in 1957” (Haller-Trost, 1993).

However, Singapore claimed that the presence of the Horsburgh Lighthouse, built by the British, was enough to prove that the island belonged to them. Singapore was entitled to inherit everything that was left behind after independence.

“Singapore on the other hand, maintains that it has full territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock due to the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, and of the HEIC (Honourable East India Company) whose legal successor Singapore is-had built a lighthouse thereon and maintained it since 1851. No government authority (neither Johore nor Malaysia) had up to 1979 objected against this status, or had made any claim to the contrary. It therefore considers the rock being legally part of its territory” (Haller-Trost, 1993).

On the 23rd of May 2008, after a 29-year territorial dispute, the ICJ ruled that Pedra Branca was under Singapore’s sovereignty. In the official press release by the ICJ handed out on the very same day, it was mentioned “The Court finds that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh; that Malaysia has sovereignty over Middle Rocks; and that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located.” (cite ICJ press release) The ruling in which decides the exact sovereignty of South Ledge has yet to be resolved.

The ICJ went on to explain that the reason for their decision was based on the fact that “Malaysia did not respond to Singapore’s conduct on the island, including the flying of its ensign, except for the republic’s installation of naval communication equipment”. (Site the star three reasons why island went to sing). The ICJ also pointed out that the Johor authorities and their successors took no action at all on the island beginning June 1850 for the whole of the following century onwards.

Distance from Pulau Batu Puteh and Singapore and Malaysia respectively

This paper looks into the coverage given by the Malaysian press on the debate over the sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh/ Pedra Branca and its subsequent referral to the ICJ, focusing more so on written articles either printed or online. The reporting was inspected for the utilisation of the media for diplomatic or political motive, seeing as the long-standing territorial dispute offered a prime opportunity to employ the media as a political or diplomatic instrument on top of its original role of informing the public.

Theoretical Framework

In undergoing this research two forms of communication were mainly utilised in the analysis of the Malaysian media coverage concerning the dispute. The first of which, being that of mediated political communication and secondly the form of mediated diplomatic communication or media diplomacy (Gilboa, 2002). All the articles looked into during the course of this research were scrutinised for evidence of media diplomacy, the extent of its usage and what it entails.

Firstly, the characteristics of political communication is defined in terms of the intentions of its senders (McNair, 2003)

“The crucial factor that makes communication ‘political’ is not the source of a message [or we might add referring back to their earlier emphasis on ‘public discussion’, its form] but its content and purpose” (Denton & Woodward, 1990)

McNair (2003) also establishes that a democratic media is needed in order to achieve objectivity in mediated political discourse. A democratic media must inform, educate on the significance or meaning of the facts, provide a platform for public discourse for ‘public opinion’ to emerge and later generate that opinion back to the public, who should be made available to information regarding those in power (the acts of whoever in supreme power made available for public scrutiny) and finally serve as a channel for the advocacy of political viewpoints.

Mediated political communications have of late, grown vastly in importance and poses as a substantial influencing medium towards public opinion. Seemingly it is the precise fact that opinions form the core of political communications that presents problems in objectivity (Bennet & Entman, 2001). However, from surveys held through audience analysis, it may be concluded that though broadcast coverage may contribute in a small way towards viewers’ preference of political candidates, it is the level of knowledge and personal interest in politics that an individual has, that ultimately governs his/her opinions (Traudt, 2005).

This brings us to the question of objectivity. Though it is often debated that complete objectivity could be something of an impossible task, as more often than not a writer’s personality or views will unconsciously be reflected within the written script, the attempt at writing objectively, putting forth facts without favouring a certain side of an argument or ellipsing information to elicit mediation, is still a task that many journalists strive to undertake. The result, is an, if not completely objective report, a report which endeavours to put forth uncensored factual information.

Journalism in Malaysia and Singapore has always been conceived to be restricted, and this year, they have held very close positions in the freedom of press rankings. In the eyes of the world, press freedom for both countries is seen as controlled and constricting. Ranking at number 143 and 145 respectively, out of 195 countries in the 2009 Freedom of Press World Ranking (Freedom House) with the bottom 64 countries, considered as having no press freedom, it is an obvious conclusion that the rest of the world views the freedom of press for both countries as severely lacking. This is a result of the legal boundaries upon both nations’ media, and these same boundaries can be seen most diligently observed in political reporting.

An alternative to the mainstream media is through the medium of new media, such as political blogs and online news groups. For Malaysia, this has proved to be promising, as recent findings from a Freedom House survey that charted the online freedom of fifteen selected countries, stated that Malaysian online freedom is ‘partly-free’ obtaining a moderate rating of 40 with a rating of 0 being completely free and 100 being not free (Freedom House).

Eytan Gilboa (2002), in the article Global Communication and Foreign Policy, has devised a table to illustrate the four different types of actors, called the ‘Taxonomy of Actors and Concepts’.

Source: Gilboa, 2002

Here, Gilboa formulised a systematic approach to analysing global communication by breaking it up into different categories of actors and its specific role. In completing this research, Gilboa’s theories were adopted and transplanted to cover the geographically smaller context of Malaysia and Singapore. With the Malaysian media, due to the constraints of the law, it is not possible for the mainstream to adopt the role of the controlling actor, where the media acts independently and has the power to swing public opinion and pressure government into acting as they believe fit (Gilboa, 2002). Online media may have the freedom to mildly tread in those waters but they do not command as much public attention as does the mainstream. In the case of Pulau Batu Puteh, the media generally emulated the role of the instrumental actor, following the concept of media diplomacy (Gilboa, 2002).

Media diplomacy has been defined as the ‘uses of the media by leaders to express interest in negotiation, to build confidence and to mobilise public support for agreements’ (Gilboa, 2002). In the press coverage of Pulau Batu Puteh, most if not all of the information broadcast had been received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or during press conferences at negotiations between the two countries. There were even articles published in the newspapers written by the diplomatic players themselves. Most notably, one that was written by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs himself, Dato’ Seri Utama Dr.Rais Yatim (2008).

Research findings

In order to go deeper into the reporting from both the mainstream media and its new media counterpart, an interview was conducted with a sample practitioner of citizen journalism and the Media Secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who was virtually the gatekeeper for all that was reported in the mainstream media. As mentioned earlier, most of the work was carried out on written articles as this is only a research paper, and it would prove to be an insufficient vehicle if all other forms of broadcast were to be incorporated instead of conducting only textual analysis.

Coverage on the long-standing dispute was extensive, and in the days leading up to the verdict, there was at least one article per day regarding the situation. However the vast majority of what was reported from each of the big four newspapers in Malaysia, New Straits Times (NST), The Star, Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian, was mainly reiterated facts drummed in again and again and did not vary by way of content from one news desk to the next. This in turn, led to the conclusion that information from all was obtained from only one source.

The mainstream media was also an instrumental tool in promoting relations between the two countries by giving exposure on the negotiations between both countries and the joint committee put together prior to the verdict to facilitate negotiations once the right to sovereignty was concluded. To assist in the research, articles on the event were divided into three sections. The first covers the period before the verdict, the second nearing the date of the verdict and the deliberations by ICJ and the third covering the post-hearing period. Press interest was at its height in the second section with coverage of the first and third on a somewhat equal status.

A pattern swiftly emerged upon the division of the articles. It was noted that the tone or morale of the information extended was significantly more positive and confident during the first period with article titles claiming ‘Rais confident of positive verdict over Batu Puteh’ and ‘Verdict over Pulau Batu Puteh will be in our favour’. Nearing the verdict however, a more tentative approach was adopted, where reports were published on negotiations and the establishment of a joint committee between the two countries to handle all actions pertaining to the territory in question (Zakaria Abdul Wahab, Singapore, Malaysia Will Accept Any Decision On Pulau Batu Puteh By ICJ – George Yeo, 2008) (Batu Putih: Malaysia – Singapura tubuh jawatankuasa bersama, 2008). Immediately after the verdict however, there was an attempt to draw focus to the fact that Malaysia had soverignty of Middle Rocks whilst downplaying the loss of Pulau Batu Puteh, by claiming it to be a win-win situation (Rais: Decision on island is a win-win situation, 2008) and rallying public support by suggesting expanditure of said island (New Dimension to Middle Rocks, 2008).

When asked as to the nature of the pattern and whether or not it was a deliberate diplomatic tactic, Edward Jules Savarimuthu, Media Secretary to the Foreign Minister of Malaysia and Media Strategist for the Pulau Batu Puteh case, claimed that, “There was no deliberate strategy that was tabled to preserve the good relations with our contesting neighbour back then. It just came out directy from the stove as fast as it was cooked, in reference to the media strategy” however he also acknowledged that, “we [Malaysia] came mid-stream when the case was already upstream, so much of what went around came in various level of deflection or rather deception. It was purely a case of “if you can’t convince them, confuse them“” in reference to deflecting negative press in the aftermath of the hearing (Savarimuthu, 2009).

However following the verdict, there was a brief period before the press continued its role in media diplomacy in early June, where criticism of the government’s administration of the case was broadcast to the public. These articles attributed the loss to the negligence of the Malaysian government and the Johor State in the past. The more condemning of these articles were those that appeared online, claiming Malaysia was lackadaisical in exercising their rights (Savarimuthu, 2009). These examples show evidence of the Malaysian media’s ability to take on the role of ‘constraining actor’, where “global news coverage may disrupt the routine policy making process … and whereas leaders may have to reorder priorities, they don’t feel forced to follow a particular policy called for by the media or implied by coverage” (Gilboa, 2002). In this case it merely means that the Malaysian media, primarily new media, is able to influence in some way the future conduct of its government. The advantage of online news as an advocate of the role of ‘constraining actor’ lies in its swiftness as “global communication constrains the policy process primarily through the high speed of broadcasting and transmitting information” (Gilboa, 2002).

At times though, the online news channels are considered to be a threat to national peace “since it can cast doubts on the integrity and reliability of its personnel and those in high office” (Savarimuthu, 2009) in the instance of the Pulau Batu Puteh incident however, this can be considered to be a moot point as there was very little information on the case made public to explain the loss of the island. “Malaysia did not handle the case as per expected. Singapore had, from the start, the expertise and documents that Malaysia did not have. Had we known this from the media, we would have been able to understand better” (Somiah, 2009).

Conclusion

Regarding the issue, and its subsequent media attention, it can be concluded that the role of the Malaysian media was predominantly, through ‘media diplomacy’ with a brief vignette as the ‘constraining actor’ played mostly via new media. In order for the Malaysian media both mainstream and otherwise to grow to encompass both controlling and constraining actor roles, the tightly drawn strings of the law must first be loosened. However, this begets a whole slew of debates and diatribes from the two camps, those who believe the country is ready and those who deem it still immature.

In reference to the ‘media diplomacy’ portrayed during the Pulau Batu Puteh predicament, from the articles collected, in depth information regarding the islet, especially historical facts prior to the year 1979, which held most of the damning evidence that lead to the loss was not made public. Though it can be argued that the information was highly classified as it was still an ongoing court hearing, (Savarimuthu, 2009) the information was still kept under wraps after the hearing was over, and the allusions to the 1953 letter from the Johor Sultanate mirrors the instances when the media or political figures referr to the May 13 incident. An occurance everybody knows about but few know what it really is. In this respect, both interviewees agreed on one point that “there is a very thin line between diplomacy and hypocrisy” (Savarimuthu, 2009)

There is a very grey area between keeping the information on a need-to-know basis and deliberately withholding intelligence from the public. For the media to practice diplomatic communication successfully and still adhere to the journalistic codes, it is imperative that the truth and abundance of information is never discounted. At the end of it all, “the media is responsible for telling the truth and truth should not be hindered at the expense of diplomacy. By telling us the truth, the media will be able to help us realise our faults and this is beneficial in the long run” (Somiah, 2009).